I never understood that. Melody & lyrics while a big part of making a song, aren't the only important things. What about the hooky bassline or the unique guitar solo, etc. etc. Why don't producers like Norman Whitfield & Phil Spector or crucial instrumentalists like James Jamerson allowed to get royalties?

It's a mystery.

Good point. Probably it's what they agree to.

Bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers & U2 (as far as I know) split the songwriting credit for that reason, they consider a guitar solo or bass line to be a part of the songwriting.

But probably a lot of session guys just agree to a flat fee for playing a part & don't require anything. But someone like Beyonce probably demands songwriting credit for adding a single word to a song!

NDRU said:

Yeah session players and producers most of the time get paid a fee from the intro on to a project, thats their contract basically. This is why you see todays producers (well beatmakers) basically writing the stuff too and putting vocals on it, its all for a pay day. So back then when someone like a Phil Ramone produced Billy Joel's "The stranger" Sony hired him gave him a check and he did the record, now who knew it would sell tens of millions worldwide, but back then Billy Joel was floundering, one album away from being dropped, but then again, Billy did the legwork for the record, he wrote everything musically and lyrically and did the shows and interviews, why shouldnt he still be getting all of it? Well some of it since Sony still gets a major cut of it.

Sandino said:

According to the music business books and articles I've read, a song and a recording are sort-of treated as different things. Publishing has to do with the song itself and the royalties are split between the songwriter(s) and the publisher.

Producers and studio musicians are part of the recording itself. Many producers get paid a fee for their work AND also get paid a seperate royalty on each sale (record/CD/download).

Studio musicians get paid for each session they do.

DerekH said:

That's what I understand also. I don't think it's so much about the publishing company getting royalities. Publishing companies handle the clearance of the actual song. For instance, if someone wants to remake the song, the publishing company would have to clear it. Same thing goes if the song is sold as sheet music, or played on the radio. ASCAP or BMI handle the business of the song itself.

If you look up a particular person's work on ASCAP or BMI's site, you will see "Cues" and other things that require clearance.

it's about what defines a song, legally, too. If you want to copyright a song, you can send a cd, or you can send a lead sheet, which is basically just the words & melody.

You can't copyright a chord sequence (ask Charlie Parker who used to write new songs based on old chord sequences) and the arrangement is not really seen as part of the songwriting.

So unless the bass actually plays the main melody, and the bass player wrote that melody, the bassline isn't seen as part of the songwriting

As for why those parts of a song don't get royalties, that is being debated in court. There is someone (is it Gladys night?) who is fighting for performers royalties, using the obvious argument that the performers contribute to a hit record, too.

And it's true, I think saying the words/melody is the most important thing is an outdated concept for much of today's music.

daPrettyman said:

That's part of a publishing co's job to clear songs, but they basically put a song to work and try to generate as much money as they can from it. (recordings, TV/film/game licesning, clearances, sheet music, radio, video, internet play, etc)

BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC collect airplay royalties from radio and TV and pay to publishing co's and songwriters.

It's a good point that if the publishing company sells the song to someone else to use, they might not keep the same bass line when they re-record it, but they will use the same lyrics and melody.

My band had an arrangement that the main writer recived 70% of publishing, but the other three of us got 10%. One guy really did come in with the song nearly finished, but all of us contributed to the final product, might suggest to change something, shorten this part, add a little extendo part there etc. To keep from getting too crazy over who contributed what, we just split the pie up. I thought that was generous on the part of the writer. It was also said that this way, the bass player & I wouldn;t feel like we had to get a song on the record if we were ever gonna see any money.

Once we signed to a major label, they insisted on retaining a small piece of the publishing at least, so what I get is actually 10% of 80% of the total royalty. But it's something.